Because frankly, some of the almost religious overtones of rms and the FSF were just nutty, and a certain portion of the community was actively driving commercial use away.
You know why the FSF and rms come across as "nutty" at times? Because without them, and without their voices being occasionally heard, PC hardware would have been as completely tied to Microsoft by now as Apple is to OSX, and we'd certainly have had another copyright extension act to boot. If they have to be loud and repetitive at times,
No, but it doesn't invalidate what they were deadset right about. For whatever Stallman's many faults, there is an obvious undercurrent of corporate interests behind the current opposition to the FSF. The GPL is simply a thorn in the side of anyone who wants to freeload off open source software.
RMS's problem, which is the FSF's problem, is that he want's no commercial usage possible.
The BSD license is good enough for everyone. GPL2 is "good enough" for specific uses, but completely inappropriate for commercial software that isn't intended to be continuously developed (eg games.)
Some software actually needs to be "BSD-like" licensed because it commercial users don't use it, we get fragmentation. The entire reason we don't have 9000 versions of TCP/IP is because the original BSD TCP/IP stac
Nonsense.
RMS's problem, which is the FSF's problem, is that he want's no commercial usage possible.
No, THAT is nonsense. RMS has written many times that he does not oppose commercial usage. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g... [gnu.org]
I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? (#NoMilitary)
No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user.
More generally, a license that limits who can use a program, or for what, is not a free software license.
Since I am not against business in general, I would oppose a restriction against commercial use. A system that we could use only for recreation, hobbies and school is off limits to much of what we do with computers.
Yet again, your outright lying about this issue shows there's ulterior motives at work. Either that, or you bought someone else's hook, lie, and sinker who were malicious or also illiterate.
Yet again, your outright lying about this issue shows there's ulterior motives at work. Either that, or you bought someone else's hook, lie, and sinker who were malicious or also illiterate.
Or rms is bad at his job of being an effective messenger.
Just look at his appearance, the long hair, scraggly beard, frumpy clothing. It's the classic unprofessional appearance. That's great for students who want to look like rebels, but it's terrible for a board room.
So yeah, people will see him and think he's hostile to commercial interests because he dresses like someone who's trying to "stick it to the man".
Now you can get away with things like that if you're good with your messaging otherwise, but rms
So you're excusing people spreading a lie that he's against commercial use of software?
He either is or isn't against commercial use of software in principle. How he appears, how good he is at messaging, is NO EXCUSE for spreading lies about his position on commercial software. This is about facts.
So you're excusing people spreading a lie that he's against commercial use of software?
He either is or isn't against commercial use of software in principle. How he appears, how good he is at messaging, is NO EXCUSE for spreading lies about his position on commercial software. This is about facts.
Your points are kinda getting mixed up.
Your previous claim was that the corporate opposition was about freeloading, ie there is an obvious undercurrent of corporate interests behind the current opposition to the FSF. The GPL is simply a thorn in the side of anyone who wants to freeload off open source software.
That is pretty damn false. Some of the biggest criticism came from RedHat, the exact opposite of a corporate freeloader. And yes it was bought by IBM, but IBM is also very much not a freeloader. Aside
Want to know what Stallman thought? Read "Free as in Freedom" Then you'll know from the primary source... Oh, yeh... information want's to be free, right? So no excuses... https://b-ok.cc/book/2837341/9... [b-ok.cc]... direct download link... https://b-ok.cc/dl/2837341/b7e... [b-ok.cc]... and for bittorrent... the Library Genesis libgen link has torrent links too... http://libgen.rs/book/index.ph... [libgen.rs]
"Nuttiness" (Score:5, Insightful)
You know why the FSF and rms come across as "nutty" at times? Because without them, and without their voices being occasionally heard, PC hardware would have been as completely tied to Microsoft by now as Apple is to OSX, and we'd certainly have had another copyright extension act to boot. If they have to be loud and repetitive at times,
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
One can be nutty and right at the same time. That doesn't make them any less nutty.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Nonsense.
RMS's problem, which is the FSF's problem, is that he want's no commercial usage possible.
The BSD license is good enough for everyone. GPL2 is "good enough" for specific uses, but completely inappropriate for commercial software that isn't intended to be continuously developed (eg games.)
Some software actually needs to be "BSD-like" licensed because it commercial users don't use it, we get fragmentation. The entire reason we don't have 9000 versions of TCP/IP is because the original BSD TCP/IP stac
Re:"Nuttiness" (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense. RMS's problem, which is the FSF's problem, is that he want's no commercial usage possible.
No, THAT is nonsense. RMS has written many times that he does not oppose commercial usage. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g... [gnu.org]
I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? (#NoMilitary)
No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user. More generally, a license that limits who can use a program, or for what, is not a free software license.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org]
Since I am not against business in general, I would oppose a restriction against commercial use. A system that we could use only for recreation, hobbies and school is off limits to much of what we do with computers.
Yet again, your outright lying about this issue shows there's ulterior motives at work. Either that, or you bought someone else's hook, lie, and sinker who were malicious or also illiterate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet again, your outright lying about this issue shows there's ulterior motives at work. Either that, or you bought someone else's hook, lie, and sinker who were malicious or also illiterate.
Or rms is bad at his job of being an effective messenger.
Just look at his appearance, the long hair, scraggly beard, frumpy clothing. It's the classic unprofessional appearance. That's great for students who want to look like rebels, but it's terrible for a board room.
So yeah, people will see him and think he's hostile to commercial interests because he dresses like someone who's trying to "stick it to the man".
Now you can get away with things like that if you're good with your messaging otherwise, but rms
Re: (Score:2)
He either is or isn't against commercial use of software in principle. How he appears, how good he is at messaging, is NO EXCUSE for spreading lies about his position on commercial software. This is about facts.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're excusing people spreading a lie that he's against commercial use of software?
He either is or isn't against commercial use of software in principle. How he appears, how good he is at messaging, is NO EXCUSE for spreading lies about his position on commercial software. This is about facts.
Your points are kinda getting mixed up.
Your previous claim was that the corporate opposition was about freeloading, ie there is an obvious undercurrent of corporate interests behind the current opposition to the FSF. The GPL is simply a thorn in the side of anyone who wants to freeload off open source software.
That is pretty damn false. Some of the biggest criticism came from RedHat, the exact opposite of a corporate freeloader. And yes it was bought by IBM, but IBM is also very much not a freeloader. Aside
What Stallman thought? Read "Free as in Freedom" (Score:2)
Want to know what Stallman thought? Read "Free as in Freedom" Then you'll know from the primary source ... Oh, yeh ... information want's to be free, right? So no excuses ... https://b-ok.cc/book/2837341/9... [b-ok.cc] ... direct download link ... https://b-ok.cc/dl/2837341/b7e... [b-ok.cc] ... and for bittorrent ... the Library Genesis libgen link has torrent links too ... http://libgen.rs/book/index.ph... [libgen.rs]
Re: (Score:2)